Dear Student Programs and Leadership Development,
While there may have been a “dialogue” last night about the Code of Ethics for those involved in Student Programs and Leadership Development including New Student Leaders and the Senior Week Staff, it didn’t seem to ameliorate the gap between those who agree with the contract and those who do not.
Personally, I think that SPLD has a distorted view of how the program should be run. The drinking clause states that you are not to participate or be in the presence of underage drinking; because of this clause there is a hindrance in the ability for NSLs to mentor their first years as well as the ability to have a diverse group of qualified students in those roles.
As a former member of New Student Programs, I did not follow the contract. I attended Clam Jam and took part in the drinking culture despite having signed it. Tonight multiple members of the SPLD board said that these actions make me and others in a similar position unethical leaders. To me that seems like an unfair accusation. I was accepted into the position because of my qualifications just like those who do not participate in the drinking culture. Additionally, I was put in charge of multiple projects leading up to Orientation and Fall Welcome, making me a productive member of the team; once again, just like my peers who do not participate in the drinking culture. Why should my participation in drinking, a choice that I myself make alone, make me any less of a leader?
Within the clause of the contract that explicitly discusses drinking it states that taking part in or being in the presence of underage drinking could cause your position to be reconsidered. This forces students to make a difficult choice that results in an awkward and uncomfortable position for those involved. As someone who has friends who are underage and drink, why should I be expected to stop hanging out with them because I chose to be a part of a leadership position? Does it seem fair to tell a student who they can and cannot be friends with if their friends choose to be involved in drinking that is illegal under your contract? My answer is no. I have met wonderful people here at Fairfield, many of whom drink but would also make terrific student leaders. It seems to me that it is a ridiculous request to say I cannot socialize with them if they chose to drink in my presence. Additionally these friends of mine, along with others I know, drink and would love to be in a leadership position but feel that they must choose between a social life that includes drinking and gaining leadership experience. While the SPLD board stated that there are other leadership positions that do not require this contract, it is unfair to limit those involved in the drinking culture to those other positions. For a program that advertises and demands inclusiveness, this is anything but inclusive.
By only choosing students who do not drink you are not accurately representing the dominant culture on Fairfield’s campus. By doing so you are doing the incoming students a disservice. If they are placed with NSLs who have never experienced the drinking culture first hand these NSLs will never be able to gain the trust of or be an example to these students. In reality the majority of student leaders are an excellent example of what it means to party or drink in moderation and still exceed their duties and goals. These leaders know what it means to be a part of the culture at Fairfield but still hold roles that include responsibilities that need to be met. If you remove these types of leaders that partake in the drinking culture but still excel in their roles you are giving a distorted picture of what it is like to attend a school that is a wet campus with a bar.
Another point that bothered me about the open forum was the discussion of being “transparent”. While SPLD claimed that they were being transparent and truthful, this was not the case for those who are aware of what goes on in NSP and SPLD. SPLD claimed that they only find out about alcohol related incidents when they are either documented or self reported. I know first hand that this is untrue. When I attended Clam Jam my freshman year under contract I received an email that they were aware that I had attended the event and that there was to be a discussion about it. This incident was neither documented nor self reported. According to rumors from within NSP checking up on students through Facebook is a frequent practice. One student at yesterday’s forum also questioned the rumors of mistrust and tattling within the team. The SPLD board tried to squash these rumors by stating that every team struggles and no team is perfect. They also said that there is also a clear divide on the team between those who follow the contract and those who do not. As a former member of NSP I know for a fact and have been a victim of the tattling within the team. Who wants to be a part of a program or a community that is known for mistrust, snitching and other appalling behavior?
Lastly, I want to address the comments made towards the FUSA leaders. I personally know many of the FUSA leaders and I can honestly say that I believe they have made a strong impact at this university. I think that it is extremely unfair for Kamala Kiem and the rest of the SPLD board to call them unethical because they do not have a non-drinking clause in their contract. FUSA does so much for this school without this clause and yet SPLD still seems to think that their possibility of being in the presence of or taking part in underage drinking makes them unethical and therefore less of a leader. What seems ironic to me is that FUSA’s retention rate is above 75% while NSP’s is 18%.
It seems to me that the SPLD board needs to realize that they are losing a battle here and instead of blindly swinging they should think about getting on board with the other contracts that seem to have better results and better feedback.
Signed,
HCFairfieldU Anonymous